On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 8:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Do you really fail to see the contradictions in this? You want the
> database to preserve the original DDL, but you also want it to update
> in response to subsequent alterations. You can't have both those
Hi. I probably didn't express myself correctly. I don't think there's
a contradiction.
I originally wrote:
"maintaining the original, at least until a re-write is necessary on renames".
But that I meant that the SQL would be preserved as-is, *initially*.
But that if/when a rename affecting that SQL happens, then it's fair
game to re-write it.
Because then the diff between my in-memory code-generated DDL, and the
server-side
DDL is no longer a false positive, as it is now from the "pre-emptive" re-write.
What is creating me pain, is the fact the re-write of the SQL is
*eager* instead of *lazy*.
I.e. I'm paying for the rewrite, even when it's not strictly necessary
(from my POV at least).
I hope that makes more sense. Thanks, --DD